posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, July 11, 2014
This is exactly what I was thinking when I previously said I was bothered by the fact that the body was contained in a glass case, with a placard, and folks were allowed to photograph it.However, if the story of how they were found is true- separated in a hidden compartment of a trunk- maybe it's more than a Guanajuato mummy.
By Daniel Hurd, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Without the benefit of seeing the material it is difficult to render a firm opinion, but based upon the description given it seems very possible.
By Ross, at Friday, July 11, 2014
This "mummy" scenario supports why I think it was taken in a relaxed environment: we have two different people taking photos, and obviously taking the time to share the camera between them.And why a glass case? The stories we get from Ufology are of the bodies in tanks, cryogenic containers, etc etc. A glass case (with a sign!) is far more indicative of something that had been put on display, rather than something preserved for secret, medical study etc.I don't know what the images show, but I'm coming more and more around to the idea the pictures were not taken in a high security environment.
By Nick Redfern, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Only Ufooologists can imagine that two slides in a private box, where the all others are depicting personal Tour, mundane & the areas events or times, etc. aka prosaic events, can be unusual, AKA the Roswell Bodies of the myth...That's hallucinating me!I guess, if they made the slides public, like others thinking like me, the slides may be fastly identified of so mundane they are.Regards,Gilles.
By Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, July 11, 2014
If it's a human corpse, the severed head is interesting. It could be an exhibit in preparation, rather than one on exhibit. Or, perhaps it was on exhibit that way because it was found in that condition -- buried like that, and therefore notable in some history or catalogue. Considering the locale, perhaps a Native American corpse from back when it was considered 'science' to dig them up, rather than grave robbing.Regards,Don
By Don, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Gillles: "Only Ufooologists can imagine that two slides in a private box, where the all others are depicting personal Tour..."Are all the other frames on the roll of "mundane" things? I haven't read descriptions of the rest of the roll.If there are no other photos on the roll taken at the same locale, it argues against this being an instance of tourists taking snaps inside a museum. Why these two only?Regards,Don
When I heard about the glass case and the placard the first thing I thought was "carnival gaff".
By Capt Steve, at Friday, July 11, 2014
This comparison is not even close. it is in fact so far fetched it practically does not deserve comment. The head, facial countenance,torso and body- there is no match. So wholly different are the two that any comparison fails on all levels.Just like the ridiculous idea that the TX AG is after the slides owner for theft of them, this idea of 'alien as mummy' is made of imagination. Not even informed speculation.AJB
By Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, July 11, 2014
"If there are no other photos on the roll taken at the same locale, it argues against this being an instance of tourists taking snaps inside a museum. Why these two only?"A completely unsupportable assessment. Sometimes people only think to take out their camera for one banal photo or two. "Why these two only?" The answer may be "because that is all they took."This point means nothing and doesn't need to be Rudiaked yet.Lance
By Lance, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Tony,But how do you explain the admittedly odd fact that the Ray's had the photos at all? If they do show something alien, in a building, how on earth would the Ray's have access to it, and be able to take photos, even to the extent of swapping the camera so each could appear in the pictures (if it is them in the pictures)?I realize that you may not have a definitive answer, but has any speculative research been done to suggest how they had the ability to take photos of what were, by all accounts, bodies subjected to massive secrecy and security from the moment they were scooped up?
Anthony:I'm actually happy to hear your strong opinion against the idea that it is a mummy on display. You do have to admit though from the knowledge most of us have, it is easy to make that conclusion. The glass case- the placard- and the fact these people took photos. I would assume you wouldn't be this excited over a mummy though.The descriptions of the alien bodies over the years have varied. All are somewhat similar but some details are not. Like the hands and feet, color of the being, large head, Asian appearance, etc. is there a former description from Roswell or otherwise that fits this creature more closely than the others? Maybe the Glenn Dennis sketch or the Leonard Stringfield sketch?
Hi Daniel-Some would characterize the face as having a sort-of insectoid countenance. Dr.Robert Sarbacher spoke to the insectile. Parts of Glenn's pics relate in some notable respects. The eyes (which are closed) while large and 'unusual' are not like the 1980s/90s Bud Hopkins-like wrap-around eyes.Nick-You must understand that the several scientists, photo experts, UFO researchers, etc. that have viewed these remain puzzled. Not one of them have ever even suggested a mummy! These two slides were separately stored (hidden) away in the chest from the other photos because they were special. And special they are.How did Bernerd acquire the slides? I do not believe that we can conclusively know. The more critical point is that this 3 foot thing from 1947 is not human, mummified, deformed or otherwise. Tim Printy even speculated it is a dead AF airman. It is of course none of these. It was a being not indigenous to Earth.Lance-You are just doing a pile-on. It is pathetic. You have no special knowledge and are simply inserting yourself. You are better than this.AJB
RichDid Larry not mention that the head was severed an then replaced at an unnatural angleDo they allow these days for severed heads to be on display for people to take photosEspecially when the object could be a child or adult with a development disorderIn my opinion thats utter rubbish.
By Al12, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Don, All the box of slides where these two slides have been found or proposed by/to our favorite team are depicting extraordinary things. Oups, no! Only these 2 ones ;) Fortunatly!Seriously, it is not the first time our favorite team is, how to say? pseudo-scientific (?), but I hope when or if they release such slides, it will be clear for ALL.Regards,Gilles.
I suppose that the longer the skeptics such as myself continue to pour scorn on these slides (as they are certainly entitled to) the less likely it is that AJB and his cohorts are to ever show them to the world.Therefore we shall have to remain in the dark. The slides have reached a total dead end. Meanwhile RR, and the rest of us, will have to introduce and pursue other, more fruitful, ufological topics.
By cda, at Friday, July 11, 2014
Tony/Nickhow did Bernard acquire these slides? have yoy both not thought that these could of been given to him/themAmong the other slides were supposedly pictures of President Eisenhower pictured with the couple, these couple obviously knew people in high places who perhaps could of obtained these slides and given them to the couple.The Rays must of known of something going on at Roswell in 1947 especially Bernard working in the area and may well of been keen to find out whatWho were Bernards collegues? who did he know? did he know people working for Wright Patterson? did he know people at Los Alamos Labs.
Lance: "A completely unsupportable assessment. Sometimes people only think to take out their camera for one banal photo or two."That is true, and another "unsupportable assessment."Why take the picture and why take it twice?Were the other photos on the roll taken indoors or outdoors? The reason to ask is that if someone were planning to photograph indoors they would not take a camera loaded with Kodachrome unless they had lights as well or knew the lighting was very bright. In 1947 Kodachrome was ASA 8 (I think there was another version that was ASA 12 available).We're told there is a lot glass in the frames. What do the reflections show?I'd argue few people in 1947 or in this century loaded up with Kodachrome to take "banal" photos. Kodachrome implies vacation, tourism, special occasion.Museums, back in the day and in my experience, were not brightly lit. One interpretation of the poor focus Larry mentioned is an attempt to let as much light onto the film as possible because of the normal museum lighting and the slowness of the film.It seems a reasonable assumption that the photographer(s) did not plan to take the pics since their equipment was for bright, sunny days outdoors.If the lighting is bright, of course, it is a different story. It seems more likely our protagonists had no intention of taking the photos, but came upon the scene and for some reason wanted a picture of it, wanted it enough to take two.I'm making no attempt to 'support an assessment'. I'm just playing with the evidence presented.Regards,Don
"This point means nothing and doesn't need to be Rudiaked yet."Lance - ...I must complement you on your new addition to the Roswell lexicon. (...and here I was proud of 'Occulist's Razor'!)
By Kurt Peters, at Friday, July 11, 2014
I hope Larry googles "bog mummy severed head" to see if he recognises anything.Bodies buried in peat are sometimes remarkably intact when found centuries later, in that the skin remains on the body. The mummies look starved and leathery, with distorted facial features. Some mummies have their heads and limbs severed when accidentally exhumed.Personally, I hope the slides are of Otzi, the 6000-year-old body in Alpine ice.
By Terry the Censor, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
Good grief...has it come down to a carnival freak show?...or has it always been so to begin with?
By Tim Hebert, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
AJB,"These two slides were separately stored (hidden) away in the chest from the other photos because they were special."If that's not properly documented then the possibility exists that they were planted. Once again there's that pesky provenance and chain of evidence issue.All of this needs to be properly investigated and then documented. We can't just take someone's word."It was a being not indigenous to Earth."You can't conclude that from a (somewhat blurry?) picture. You need to rule out all of the more prosaic explanations first.Look, AJB: I'm no skeptic. I'm firmly in the "People see UFOs that are unexplainable" camp. I would like to see UFOs examined in a more scientific manner than they have been in the past.What you're doing is not scientific nor is it good investigative technique. You're essentially fitting the evidence to the conclusion, and worse, it's dubious evidence and a dubious conclusion.It's sloppy work and it deservedly opens you up for attack.
By Capt Steve, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
As I said above, it is time to move onto other topics. The slides issue is dead, if only because we are not being allowed to see and examine the slides.We are not being allowed to for the simple reason that if they were shown to the scientific world and the public they would be soon exposed as worthless. What is the point of arguing about photos that nobody but the select few has ever seen? It's all hype, isn't it?
By cda, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
"The slides issue is dead, if only because we are not being allowed to see and examine the slides."That's not necessarily a showstopper. We're not allowed to examine hominid fossils, either, but we accept the fact that they represent (for example) australopithecus. That's because the fossils have been handled in a rigorous and and scientific way. If someone were to uncover an ancient skull and claim it was a human ancestor belonging to an unknown species we would not take them at their word for it...they'd have to prove it. We'd also need to see associated evidence; measurements, photos, dating info, photos of the dig, etc.None of that has been remotely done with these slides. I'd even venture to say that if these slides DID represent evidence of a non-human presence that the sloppy handling as presented by AJB has ruined that evidence.My fear is that any evidence in the future may also be ruined unless UFO investigators engage in a more scientific approach and use criminological techniques for evidence handling. Anything less than that is just sloppy work and discredits the topic of UFOs even further.
Capt Steve: "My fear is that any evidence in the future may also be ruined unless UFO investigators engage in a more scientific approach and use criminological techniques for evidence handling."Lord, yes please.Maybe prayer will work, since reason doesn't.Ufo writers have been grave robbers and treasure hunters, not archeologists. Lestrades, not Holmeses.They should be introduced to the High Strangeness of forensic procedure.Regards,Don
By Don, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
"It's all hype, isn't it?"So far it sounds very much like just another crummy exhibit in the Kooky "UFO" Funhouse, aka, the "UFO" Museum of the Hard-to-Believe.The "Roswell slides" will probably reside in the Ray Santilli wing.
By zoamchomsky, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
I wonder who everyone would choose to investigate these slides. I wonder what conclusions would have been drawn by a team of investigators that had zero interest in Roswell or UFOs. Yet, one must wonder how and why the Roswell Team was contacted about the slides. It sounds like this creature appears to look "alien". Otherwise why would some Chicago business man, who most likely has no real interest in the subject, contact the Roswell Team? Just some speculation- I could be way off. I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the investigation of these slides has been sloppy. We haven't gotten any official results to make that judgment. I understand the chain of custody has been destroyed- but that happened before the Roswell Team was involved. And finally the team is not in control of the slides or when they will be released. We cannot blame Tony for not releasing them. It isn't his decision to make. At this point though, I'm wondering if putting the slides in public view could actually lead to more answers. Maybe former friends or colleagues of the photographer will come forward with more information. I also would hope the team is showing the images to anthropologists and getting their opinion on the being. Although I would imagine any scientist would be hard pressed to make a concrete conclusion based on two photos.Still opinions of educated and credentialed scientists would be of value when releasing this story to the public.
By Daniel Hurd, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
Daniel: "I wonder who everyone would choose to investigate these slides."Because we are told the film is Kodachrome and that it was exposed sometime between the late '40s and early '50s, I recommend former Kodak photochemists who worked with Kodachrome. The goal would be to determine if it is, in fact, Kodachrome from that era.The reason is that if it is what we have been told, then it would be very difficult for the slides to be later fakes or a hoax, due to the difficulties involved in getting viable film stock, chemistry, equipment, and expertise long after the film's production ceased.Kodachrome was unique in several ways from other slide films. The most obvious being it was a black and white film to which the color chemistry was added during development. Other films had the color dyes in the emulsion. That chemistry was kept by Kodak. All Kodachrome back then was developed directly by Kodak for that reason. It could not be jobbed out like other films.We are told each photo has a figure behind the case, in one a man, in the other a woman. The figures are seen from the waist down.Assuming they aren't naked, can we tell what they are wearing? For example, if the man is wearing drop loop slacks, it is likely the photo was shot in the timeframe presented. Or much less likely, it was later and the man preferred to wear styles from his youth, or it is even later and it is a younger man who likes a retro style. The first, though, would be the most common and most likely, so drop loops would support the time frame -- assuming the woman's styles were complimentary.One can date photos by the styles and fashions in them.The sign on the case which obscures the genital area does not support the photos are of a public museum display. Visit such a museum and see how the placards are placed. Perhaps the photos were taken in a museum lab where exhibits are prepared or stored, and the label is a simple note about the contents.Then there is the issue of the lighting. Rich's museum picture shows typical lighting. It is dim with area lighting on the exhibits. If the lighting in the photo is bright it would argue against the photos being of a museum exhibit. Different lighting types affect color rendition. We need to determine if the lighting is contemporary with the late '40s, early '50s, or a later era. Mixed incandenscent and natural lighting would suggest it was daylight and there was a window or skylight nearby, for example.So, yeah. The photos need to be "rudiaked".Regards,Don
See Tony Bragalia's new post.RR
By RRRGroup, at Saturday, July 12, 2014
"One tiny baby mummy is labeled, "La momia más pequeño del mundo"--the smallest mummy in the world. The baby and the mother (they died during a caesarean section) are in the museum, but they will not be found together."Appalling...
By Parakletos, at Sunday, July 13, 2014
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile